I think that the rules for two stererotypes that I claim, peacenik and environmentalist, say that I cannot want more nuclear power. The problem is that those stereotypes conflict with another of my faces: I am also a science and math buff.
How can I love nuclear power? What about the spent fuel? FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, MATT, THE WASTE!! WHAT ABOUT THE WASTE??? YUCCA MOUNTAIN WILL BE THE DEATH OF US ALL!!
What if I told you it was not one-tenth of the big deal we make of it? I’ll try. This from a recent report on foreignpolicy.com:
The big problem is that plutonium has a half-life of 24,000 years, and the argument goes: how can we keep spent plutonium safe for that long? It’s not possible, right?
Wrong. A couple of facts: (1) Plutonium is so insoluble in groundwater that it’s really not a problem to surrounding communities. It’s really quite easy to store safely. (2) Many countries, France chief among them, reprocess plutonium for use as fuel (again) in reactors. Works like a charm.
The real problem, it turns out, is other waste resulting from the process of converting plutonium into power. But even that isn’t what you think it is: the US government has placed very heavy restrictions on how much leakage can be allowed from, for example, Nevada’s Yucca Mountain waste site. The facility is required to show that someone living downstream from the site, and drinking all of their water from underground wells, would ingest no more than 15 millirems of radiation per year as a result of Yucca Mountain’s activities. For comparison: those same people will get 350 millirems from nature and from normal human activity.
If we maintain a very simple level of care (ensuring that there is no more than a 10 percent chance that no more than 10 percent will leak), much lower than our current standards , the danger from storing nuclear waste is actually less than if we had never mined the plutonium in the first place.
Nuclear fuel is clean and safe. We should get used to that as fact.